pin_functions

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations or output schema, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the return shape via the mapping example, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about invalid pins, read-only semantics, or empty results.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, followed by an illustrative example. The trailing ellipsis adds little but the description is tight overall.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter read tool the description is adequate, and the example compensates for the absence of an output schema. However, it omits error behavior and how this differs from mcu_pin_functions, which an agent needs given the crowded sibling set.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters (pin, project_id) are already documented with examples in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('every selectable function of a pin'), reinforced by a concrete example (PA9 -> TIM1_CH2, USART1_TX, GPIO_Output). It is clear what the tool returns, though it never distinguishes itself from the similar sibling mcu_pin_functions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The only hint is the CLI equivalent `get functions <pin>`, so the agent must infer that this is a read-only lookup to run before pin_set. The near-duplicate sibling mcu_pin_functions is not addressed, leaving real ambiguity about which to choose.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.